The Apocalypse is Now!

“When it is evening, you say, ‘It will be fair weather for the sky is red.’ And in the morning, 'There will be a storm today, for the sky is red and lowering.' You know then how to discern the face of the sky, and can you not know the signs of the times?”Matthew 16:2-4

Today I read yet another story about the grim news of climate change. I am not waiting for an Apocalypse because there can be little doubt now that the Apocalypse of Selfishness of which I have written is the Apocalypse of Now. The changes in climate that herald a drastic change in the Earth's climate that has welcomed humanity are now accelerating at an unprecedented rate and severity.

In Scripture Christ mocked those who could not see the signs of what was happening. Are the Climate Change Deniers guilty of the same shortsightedness and is the result going to be an ever acerbating destruction of humanities' habitat?

When I read and hear the rhetoric of the Republican candidates for President (all of them) I am reminding what Jefferson wrote:

"I tremble for my county, when I reflect that God is just." Make that tremble for the world. Of course the irony is that slaveholder Jefferson never acted personally to alleviate the evil that brought the greatest destruction in his country's history.

Yet, in three months we will be celebrating another holiday: Easter. It is the hope of Resurrection that fueled the growth of Christianity but Pope Francis has recognized that God's mercy and forgiveness is not just for those baptized Christians. It is for all humanity. There is always hope for survival, if not for the entirety of humanity, at least for each and every of humanities' members. Let us pray Francis is right.

Read and weep: "Climate Change Across the Map" NY Times 12/31/2015  p. 1
-----------------------------------------------------------------
This is not a promo for my book "Quantum Christ" but if you are interested:

http://johnklotz.blogspot.com/2015_01_01_archive.html

Rachel Maddow nails it

Obama has always been an eloquent speaker with the ability to explain complex issues. He is a world leader in sounding the alarm on the issue of client change. However, sometimes he talks the talk but doesn't walk the walk. Two examples: Shell giving license to drill in the Arctic and his reticence to bit the bullet on the Keystone Pipeline.

Among the facts about the Keystone are these: It is designed to transmit oil wrenched from tar sands in Canada to refineries in Texas for export internationally. It's a lose lose proposition.

Last week on MSNBC, Rachel Maddow really nailed it and came-up with an alternative job producing program which would solve an enormous environmental crisis, create jobs and make every one safer: upgrade and revitalize existing pipeline and transmission facilities for oil (i.e. railroads) the aged condition of which is currently causing death and pollution.

Win win. We create jobs and ameliorate, if not totally cure, the environmental disaster of current oil transmission whether by railroad or pipeline.

John Klotz

This is not a book promo but is you are interested:

http://johnklotz.blogspot.com/2015/01/the-coming-of-quantum-christ-has-arrived.html

Coming Events in 2016

As some of you may remember I have published a book: The Coming of the Quantum Christ. There are two YouTubes that has just come on line that relate to my book Quantum Christ.  One is a trailer for a movie to be released by Sony Pictures in 2016 concerning a centurion directed by Pontius Pilate to search the missing body of Christ. The other concerns a conference scheduled next spring on "The Science of Consciousness."

The movie is fiction of course but the events are projections of what is reported in the Gospel. Included is one brief tantalizing scene in which someone is examining a cloth that appears to be the Shroud of Turin. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0s9g7s8hH9Y

The second is a promo for a conference to be held in Arizona next spring about the Science of Consciousness. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJMYzeSwSGU&feature=youtu.beIt is not currently about the Shroud at all but when you view the trailer the relationship should be obvious.

The relationship? The conference organizer is Stuart Hameroff who makes an appearance in Quantum Christ.  The conference not about the Shroud, but Isabel Piczek is an artist who is a trained physicist has described the Shroud as an Event Horizon.

To paraphrase John Muir (and Now Pope Francis): Everything is connected. Hold on to your hats. Next year is going to be a big year for the Shroud.

This not a book promo but if you are interested:

http://johnklotz.blogspot.com/2015/01/the-coming-of-quantum-christ-has-arrived.html

Apocalypse Now

For most of my life, from time to time, I have seen cartoons in magazines satirizing street corner prophets of an apocalypse. The usual caricature is of a scruffy man, in a shabby robe with a long scraggly beard carrying a sign which reads "The End is Near" or some such.

Well, it's early morning and I am not carrying a placard as I start this piece. I am in a robe (bath) but I don't have a long beard although I am as of yet unshaven. I don't have a placard but I do have a blog and a computer. However, I have just read a piece on the web from the morning New York Times by Thomas Friedman, and so here's my message: "The End is Near."

Four years ago I began work on my book The Coming of the Quantum Christ. At the very end of my introduction, I described Science as being both Christ and Anti-Christ and raised the question of whether the scientific study of the Shroud of Turin could be the "Coming of a Quantum Christ." It was a rhetorical question. By the time I got to Chapter 17 of the book in the spring of 2014, the question was no longer rhetorical because there was in 2014 a flood of scientific reports from a wide variety of sources that climate change was real and its devastating effects were already being felt in a multitude of places. Time is running out.

Today, as I read Friedman's article my conclusion is that while time may not have completely run out, the end is fast approaching. I crammed a great deal into Chapter 17 because the principal focus of the Quantum Christ is the authenticity of the Shroud and, if authentic, its meaning. One of the items I touched on in that chapter was the claim that climate change was causing war. Some are dubious. Be dubious no more.

Friedman's Time's piece is dealing with the unprecedented heat wave that has struck the Middle East this year with a heat index as high as 163°. Millennia old sources of water are drying-up and disappearing. Governments in Iraq and Iran, among others, seem to be powerless. Electricity, and thus air conditioning, is rationed.

I am not a fundamentalist Christian. If anything, I guess I am a disciple of paleontologist and Jesuit priest Peirre Teilhard de Chardin. To a certain extent so too is Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI and, I surmise, Francis, the first Jesuit Pope.

Michelle Bachman is a former member of Congress, briefly a 2012 candidate for President, and professed fundamentalist Christian. In a radio interview last April, she rejoiced that Obama was actually bringing on the "End of Times" [the Apocalypse] and what a privilege it was to be alive at this moment.

Needless to say, I am not as "rapturous" as Ms. Bachman about the onset of the Apocalypse. I do believe that Pope Francis is a prophet of apocalypse and is endeavoring to avoid it. His prophecy Laudato Si is addressed not only to Roman Catholics but to all humanity. His message has reached, and been embraced by some fundamentalists, Jewish rabbis, Buddhists and humanists.  On Tuesday, August 18, Islamic leaders from 20 countries after a two day symposium issued an Islamic Declaration on Global Climate Change.

Echoing Pope Francis prophetic Laudato Si but placing it in an Islamic context it began:

"God – Whom we know as Allah – has created the universe in all its diversity, richness and vitality: the stars, the sun and moon, the earth and all its communities of living beings. All these reflect and manifest the boundless glory and mercy of their Creator. All created beings by nature serve and glorify their Maker, all bow to their Lord’s will. We human beings are created to serve the Lord of all beings, to work the greatest good we can for all the species, individuals, and generations of God’s creatures."

To my fundamentalist brothers and sisters in Christianity: Do not rejoice in "End of Times" but continue to ameliorate the miseries visited on humanity with the self sacrifices that so many of you have demonstrated. The message of our Gospel is that ultimately we will be judged not by what we do for ourselves but what we do for our neighbors who are in need. In the parable of the Good Samaritan, Christ made clear that helping those in need was not limited to co-religionists. Our "neighbor" is all humanity.

JFK said in 1961 "on this Earth, God's work must truly be our own." Shakespeare wrote in Julius Caesar some 400 years before: "The fault lies not in our stars but in ourselves." I take my prophets and prophecies where I find them.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This post is not intended as a sales pitch for Quantum Christ, but if you are interested in Quantum Christ check out http://johnklotz.blogspot.com/2015/01/the-coming-of-quantum-christ-has-arrived.html

Riding the Red Horse of War

The opposition expressed by Senator Charles "Chuck" Schumer and Congress Member Eliot Engel to the nuclear accord with Iran evokes memories of the 2002 debate over the Joint Resolution authorizing George W. Bush to commence war in Iraq. The war that was authorized by that vote led to 5,000 military deaths, tens of thousands of wounded veterans and the death of more than a hundred thousand Iraqi civilians. It has cost an estimated three trillion dollars and counting.

Schumer's opposition to the Iranian accord is uniquely challenging. He is the designated successor to Harry Reid as leader of Senate Democrats when Reid retires at the end of his current term.

Among the Democratic Senators who voted for the 2002 war resolution were Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, John Edwards and Schumer. Engel was one of 81 Democrats in the House of Representatives who supported the war authorization while 126 Democrats, including Nancy Pelosi, opposed it.

In the 2004 Presidential Election, the Democratic ticket consisted of war "liberals" Kerry and Edwards. By that time, the antiwar movement had grown geometrically. Barak Obama, an Illinois state legislator who had opposed the war, electrified the 2004 Democratic Convention and went on to win election to the United States Senate. In 2008, his early opposition to the war played a major role in mobilizing his support and in the defeat of his pro-war opponent Hillary Clinton.

The vote for or against the Iranian accord is ultimately another vote for or against war. The same forces that cowed Kerry, Clinton, Edwards, Schumer and Engel into supporting the Iraq war authorization are now at work opposing the Iranian accord. That accord was the result of years of painstaking negotiations. John Kerry was its principal negotiator; Hillary Clinton has announced her tentative support but Chuck Schumer and Eliot Engel have announced their opposition.

The opposition is based upon fantasies spun by Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu who also supported the Iraq war. The defeat of the Iranian accord may very well be more devastating, than the Iraq vote. Iraq's weapons of mass destruction were a myth swallowed whole. Iran's program to build a nuclear bomb is not. Other than war, the consensual Iranian accord is the only path open to stopping Iran obtaining nuclear weapons short of war.

The international sanctions regime was carefully crafted under the United States' leadership. Included were Germany and the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council among them Russia and China. If the the accord is defeated those sanctions, other than the United Sates, will collapse. So will United States pretense to international leadership in the Middle East.

Lined-up in support of the Iranian nuclear deal are an impressive array of three dozen retired Generals and Admirals[1] and 29 scientists including several Nobel Prize winners.[2]

The opposition includes in addition to Tea Party "know nothings" the Republican leadership of the House and Senate who are committed to making Obama fail whatever the cost to the nation. Powerful pro-Israeli and Netanyahu lobbying groups give the appearance of a unified Jewish community but that is hardly the case. According to a national poll of self-identified Jews conducted by LA Jewish Journal in July, more Jews supported the Iranian accords than opposed it.[3]

On August 17th, 340 US Rabbis issued a statement supporting the Iranian accords that was published in the National Catholic Reporter.[4] Among other things they noted that "[w]e've seen many of the leaders of Israel's military and intelligence community declare that this deal is the best path for Israel moving forward.

In 2001, I was Chair of a Sierra Club task force that reported on the relationship of terrorism to the environmental movement in the wake of 9/11. I also was allied with those in the Club who sought to have the Club oppose the 2002 war resolution. When Nancy Pelosi opposed the resolution, the San Francisco Chapter sought to honor her for her decision but was forbidden to do so by the national Club leadership. Ultimately, the Club leadership belatedly opposed the war ‑ but it was too late. Kerry and Clinton had already supported it and in 2004, I believe that Kerry and Edwards paid a price for their early war support. Certainly in 2008, Clinton did.

Schumer and Engel will win only if they lose.

Should the opposition to the Iranian accord fail, whether by senate filibuster or failure to override a threatened Obama veto, it is likely that neither Schumer nor Engel will suffer for their opposition. Already, some Senate supporters of the accord state for the record their support for Schumer apart from his opposition to the Iranian accord. But what if Schumer and Engel stumble to a win for their position? What if their opposition does drag enough Democratic legislators with them to defeat the Iranian accord?

If the Iranian accord is defeated inevitable chaos will ensue in the already chaotic Middle East. The international sanctions regime that brought Iran to the negotiating table will evaporate. The door to Russian and Chinese hegemony in the Middle East will be opened wide.

Israel's only remedy will be to attack Iran. That seems to be Netanyahu's aim, but the blood will be on the hands of Engel and Schumer. Neither of them have any record of military service nor scientific training. That may seem a harsh judgment but that is what is at stake. Eventually, that blood may very well be American as well as Muslim and Israeli.

Listen! Can you hear them? The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse are riding; they are just beyond the horizon, but they are fast approaching. Their horses are white, black, pale and red.They embody pestilence, famine, death and war.

The Red Horse symbolizes War. Too many people, often for their own selfish reasons, are eager to follow the rider of the red horse. In another context recall Moby Dick and the crazed decision of crew of the Pequod to follow Captain Ahab to their extinction. Only the narrator Ishmael survived.

---

[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/retired-generals-and-admirals-back-iran-nuclear-deal/2015/08/11/bd26f6ae-4045-11e5-bfe3

[2] http://time.com/3990001/29-scientists-obama-iran-nuclear-deal/

[3] http://www.jewishjournal.com/nation/article/new_poll_u.s._jews_support_iran_deal_despite_misgivings

[4] http://ncronline.org/print/news/politics/340-us-rabbis-we-support-historic-nuclear-accord

It's all about him

There was a time when Americans valued "class" with a small "c." I'm not talking about economic "class" or social "class" but a genuine understanding that it's not all about me and the ability to congratulate a successful opponent with grace and dignity, understanding that there is a tomorrow and that in politics (and sports) today's adversary may be tomorrow’s ally or teammate. Among the classless moments of my memory are Nixon's "You won't have Nixon to kick around any more" and Roger Maris's comment after the Yankees lost to Pittsburg in the 1960 World Series: "Everyone knows we were best team. It's too bad we didn't win."

Right up there is Bill Clinton's Fred Thomasesque speech in Missouri Saturday night. It was all about Bill and not much about Hillary. The anchors at CNN and MSNBC didn't make that up. It was there on the screen.

There's empathy and there is pseudo-empathy. There is the empathy of one who truly feels your pain and the pseudo-empathy of a narcissist who adopts empathy as a mask for his or her self involvement. In Missouri, after Hillary's lost, Bill Clinton by talking about himself and his administration definitively defined himself. It was all about him. His empathy has all the sincerity of Mitt Romney's smile.

Maybe it's time that the Clintonistas started reviewing the great accomplishments of the Clinton administration. Was he better on the environment than Bush - by a million millions. Was he better on the economy: Clinton rode the Wall Street wave and left office just before the deluge. We also lost the Congress in 1992 and didn’t win it back until 14 years later in 2006.

NAFTA was his, remember? Not to denigrate his entire administration. To me, the most pressing issue for electing almost any Democrat will be, and remains, the reactionary packing of the Supreme Court. We lose this one and the Court may be gone for a generation.

In 2000 I played a minor role in helping Hillary get her the Sierra Club endorsement. I have no regrets. I wish her a long, long productive career in the United States Senate. I hope she will have one.

Is Clorox bleaching the green Sierra Club white?

For over a decade, I was fairly active in the Sierra Club, but for multiple reasons over the past two years, I have had to let Sierra Club stuff slide. But now, something has happened that requires some comment. Carl Pope, the Executive Director of the Sierra Club has announced an exciting new “partnership” with Clorox to develop green products. The question to many is Clorox bleaching the green Sierra Club white.

What we are watching is perhaps the final chapter of the conversion of the Sierra Club ‑ on a national level ‑ from an activists driven organization to a corporate driven organization where the interest of the Sierra Club as a corporation invariably trumps the interest of the Sierra Club as an activists’ organization. I struggled against that mentality for about three years and then, as pressures from my practice, and my son Mike's illness, moved front and center had to cede the struggle to others. I would bring to your attention several hall marks of this struggle which have ramifications not only of Sierra Club members but for the nation at large.

(1) the decision to pull all criticism of Bush from the Club's web site taken in haste without due deliberation in aftermath of 9/11. According to the President of the Club, the was a no-brainer because of concerns about corporate contributors.

(2) the refusal of the BOD of directors in February 2002 to seriously implement the report of the Global Environmental and Security Task Force which I happened to chair. We recommended that the Club “message to security” and demonstrate that our environmental goals are intrinsically related to national security. Robert Kennedy, Jr. had earlier made the same point a few weeks after 9/11.

When we reported to the Club Board of Directors (“BOD”) the Executive Director ostentatiously read the newspaper and then said that "We have passed this by focus groups and they don’t think that this is something the Club should get involved with.” I subsequently coined a phrase "focus group morality" to express my disdain for those who would substitute the opinions of focus groups for the dictates of conscience. Incidentally, a number of people have pointed out that it was reliance on focus groups to dictate strategy that was key element of Kerry’s 2004 loss.

(3) I believe it was the same year that saw the creation of the Sierra Club Mutual Fund which was supposed to open the door to unlimited wealth for the Club. I thought at the time that proposal would create a rather run-of-the-mill fund which would not really be truly extraordinary and arguably not all that green.

(4) Then there was the struggle in the fall of 2002 to get the Club to oppose the Iraq war and nip it at the bud. The Club had an existing anti-war policy on environmental grounds but the insiders led by Pope struggled ruthlessly and disingenuously to squelch opposition to the war in the Sierra Club.

The Club’s Council of Conservation Leaders, (CCL) passed a resolution in September of 2002, that the Club opposed the looming invasion of Iraq. The BOD sidetracked the resolution to the Conservation Governance Committee (CGC) and then in a private E-Mail (somehow I acquired a copy), the President of the Club lobbied the CGC to defeat the resolution. In October, with the Sierra Club's voice having been silenced, many Democrats voted for the war resolution and that vote has come back to haunt many of them particularly Clinton, Kerry and Edwards.

The great “what if” of American politics is “what if” we had vigorously opposed the war resolution? Could we have budged Kerry or Edwards. I don't think Hillary was budgeable. How different our political history would have been had either Kerry or Edwards voted "no" and at least in Edward's case we now know it was a very close call (thanks to the venomous memoir of perpetual loser and focus group freak Bob Shrum).

The low-point of the affair was when the National Conservation Director threatened to discipline the San Francisco Chapter for proposing to thank Nancy Pelosi for her vote against the 2002 resolution.

It was only after an E-Mail proposal by Pope to expel the members of the Glen Canyon Group in Utah for publicly opposing Club policy was published by the LA Times that the Club - too late - changed its position and publicly opposed the war.

And then there was the 2003 BOD election where independent voices were purged from the BOD under guise of protecting us from the anti-immigration faction. I am told that the husband of one candidate invested $125,000 dollars in that effort. The main problem was that among those purged in the immigration struggle were independent voices that opposed the efforts of the anti immigration faction.

Perhaps, the final blow was the closing of the CCL E-Mail list that allowed a free flow of ideas among members nationwide.

But Sierra Club members at the local level should not lose heart. They still have enough autonomy to deal with local issues and your voice n what happens in our communities is vitally important. You are doing God's work. Whatever the penzavotte at the national level do: "Keep the faith, baby."

During the Vietnam War, the Sierra Club took the courageous position that the use of Agent Orange was wrong. History has proven it right. Now the Club squashes dissent about war and makes deals with corporations whose environmental record – like Clorox – is atrocious.

When I objected to the purging of Bush from the Club web site in 2001, the Club President defended that act by saying that they had a telephone conference that afternoon and that the purge was a "no-brainer" because of the impact of 9/11 on the corporate donors.

She was right. It was a no brainer. It was also a no guts. The struggle for a habitable environment demands both brains and guts.

Is Clorox bleaching the green Sierra Club white? Perhaps I am being unfair, maybe the Club has just changed interest from green trees to green papers.